A235 EXPLORING PATIENT FACTORS FOR CANCELLED OR MISSED APPOINTMENTS TO AN URGENT GASTROENTEROLOGY OUTPATIENT CLINIC.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology reports that wait times to see a gastroenterologist are too long, even for urgent problems. Cancellations and no-shows compound this problem and lead to poor services utilization. A weekly urgent GI clinic started at St Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton in March 2014 to improve timely access for patients. The clinic accepted referrals from the emergency room (ER) and urgent care with a capacity of 6 patients per week booked within 3 weeks of referral. The cancellation and absence rate from the clinic was 25% in the first 6 months despite patients receiving mail and phone reminder. Studies in no-show predictors focus on primary care, pediatric population and routine outpatient appointments. Published studies on absence rate in urgent clinic settings are very limited. The present study explores patient factors for the high absence rate at our urgent GI clinic. Retrospective review of patients booked to the urgent GI clinic between March and September 2014 that were absent at their appointment. The patient demographics, reasons for referrals, duration of symptoms were reviewed from the chart. The patients were contacted to explain why they missed their appointment and were offered to be rebooked. Between March and October 2014, 37 patients (25%) were absent for their appointment to the urgent GI clinic. The average age of patients was 51 years, and 43% were females. The mean duration of symptoms was 28.2 weeks, but 56% of patients had more acute symptoms for 1 week or less when presenting to ER or urgent care. The reasons for referrals included lower GI bleeding (24%), upper GI bleeding (22%), abdominal pain (16%), dysphagia (8%), anemia (5%) and inflammatory bowel disease (5%). Several attempts were made to contact patients, and 22/37 (59%) were reached. Of the 22 patients, 10 elected to cancel without rebooking, 3 were seen as inpatients, and 3 were seen by another outpatient gastroenterologist. Only 6/22 (27%) were rebooked to another urgent clinic appointment. The urgent GI clinic is a useful means for seeing patients with subacute GI illness but has an unacceptably high rate of missed appointments. Of the patients we contacted, only 27% were rebooked back to the urgent clinic. Almost half elected not to rebook suggesting that an urgent referral may not have been appropriate. On the other hand, 3 patients were admitted, suggesting that outpatient management may not have been suitable either, and 3 patients decided to follow up with their established gastroenterologist. The urgent GI clinic now screens all referrals for appropriateness, and does not see patients seen within the past year by another gastroenterologist. Follow-up data will hopefully demonstrate reduction in absence rate with this new strategy. None
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".